...'The fact is that the legislative record provides little indication one way or the other of the Congressional intent, but the statutory text does. Section 36B plainly makes subsidies only available only on Exchanges established by states.'... This issue never came up.... About everyone also believed some states would not establish their own exchanges. Smaller states, for example, might opt out because they just didn't have the scale needed to make the program work. I don't recall a single member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, who believed that if this happened those states would lose their subsidies. At worst, this is clearly a drafting error that in the old days would have been quickly fixed in a technical corrections bill. But these aren't the old days.... No one risks losing their subsidies until this issue is finally decided....

This would put Republicans in the federal exchange states in a heck of a political bind.... The political consequences for all of these people losing their subsidies and their coverage would immediately shift to the Republicans who control these state governments. Proponents of Halbig argue that the fault for people losing their coverage would be on the Obama administration because they have operated Obamacare in an illegal manner.... Millions of people would have their insurance yanked out from under them in what people will see as part of the ongoing partisan political wars being waged by people out of touch with life in the rest of the country. The fundamental problem the Halbig proponents have here is that common sense, whatever a court rules, tells people that denying subsidies in half the states was never the intent of the Congress--that this is all about political point scoring and stopping a law Republicans hate.... Obamacare's most partisan and ideologically opposed enemies scored a big victory today.... But below the surface lots of sensible Republicans must be sweating bullets.

...'The fact is that the legislative record provides little indication one way or the other of the Congressional intent, but the statutory text does. Section 36B plainly makes subsidies only available only on Exchanges established by states.'... This issue never came up.... About everyone also believed some states would not establish their own exchanges. Smaller states, for example, might opt out because they just didn't have the scale needed to make the program work. I don't recall a single member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, who believed that if this happened those states would lose their subsidies. At worst, this is clearly a drafting error that in the old days would have been quickly fixed in a technical corrections bill. But these aren't the old days.... No one risks losing their subsidies until this issue is finally decided....

This would put Republicans in the federal exchange states in a heck of a political bind.... The political consequences for all of these people losing their subsidies and their coverage would immediately shift to the Republicans who control these state governments. Proponents of Halbig argue that the fault for people losing their coverage would be on the Obama administration because they have operated Obamacare in an illegal manner.... Millions of people would have their insurance yanked out from under them in what people will see as part of the ongoing partisan political wars being waged by people out of touch with life in the rest of the country. The fundamental problem the Halbig proponents have here is that common sense, whatever a court rules, tells people that denying subsidies in half the states was never the intent of the Congress--that this is all about political point scoring and stopping a law Republicans hate.... Obamacare's most partisan and ideologically opposed enemies scored a big victory today.... But below the surface lots of sensible Republicans must be sweating bullets.

The Most-Recent Thirty

Probably Worth Reading...

We Are with Her!

Looking Forward to Four Years During Which Most if Not All of America's Potential for Human Progress Is Likely to Be Wasted

With each passing day Donald Trump looks more and more like Silvio Berlusconi: bunga-bunga governance, with a number of unlikely and unforeseen disasters and a major drag on the country--except in states where his policies are neutralized.

Nevertheless, remember: WE ARE WITH HER!

Definitely Worth Reading...

Blogging: What to Expect Here

The purpose of this weblog is to be the best possible portal into what I am thinking, what I am reading, what I think about what I am reading, and what other smart people think about what I am reading...

"Bring expertise, bring a willingness to learn, bring good humor, bring a desire to improve the world—and also bring a low tolerance for lies and bullshit..." — Brad DeLong

"I have never subscribed to the notion that someone can unilaterally impose an obligation of confidentiality onto me simply by sending me an unsolicited letter—or an email..." — Patrick Nielsen Hayden

"I can safely say that I have learned more than I ever would have imagined doing this.... I also have a much better sense of how the public views what we do. Every economist should have to sell ideas to the public once in awhile and listen to what they say. There's a lot to learn..." — Mark Thoma

"Tone, engagement, cooperation, taking an interest in what others are saying, how the other commenters are reacting, the overall health of the conversation, and whether you're being a bore..." — Teresa Nielsen Hayden

"With the arrival of Web logging... my invisible college is paradise squared, for an academic at least. Plus, web logging is an excellent procrastination tool.... Plus, every legitimate economist who has worked in government has left swearing to do everything possible to raise the level of debate and to communicate with a mass audience.... Web logging is a promising way to do that..." — Brad DeLong

"Blogs are an outlet for unexpurgated, unreviewed, and occasionally unprofessional musings.... At Chicago, I found that some of my colleagues overestimated the time and effort I put into my blog—which led them to overestimate lost opportunities for scholarship. Other colleagues maintained that they never read blogs—and yet, without fail, they come into my office once every two weeks to talk about a post of mine..." — Daniel Drezner